"Monks, those recluses and brahmans who regard the self in various ways, do so in terms of the five groups of clinging, or some of them. Which five?

"Here, monks, the uninstructed worldling... regards body as the self, the self as having body, body as being in the self, or the self as being in the body. [Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.'] So this way of regarding arises: it occurs to him to think 'I am.'[1]

"Now when it has occurred to him to think 'I am,' the five (sense-) faculties[2] come into play[3] — the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body.

"Monks, there is mind,[4] there are mind-objects,[5] there is the element of ignorance.[6] The uninstructed worldling, touched by the feeling[7] born of contact with ignorance, thinks 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'things will be,' 'things will not be,'[8] 'things will be embodied,'[9] 'things will be disembodied,' 'things will be conscious,' 'things will be unconscious,' 'things will be neither conscious-nor-unconscious.'[10]

"It is just in this way, monks, that the five (sense-) faculties persist. But here, for the well taught Ariyan disciple, ignorance is abandoned and knowledge arises.[11] With the waning of ignorance and the arising of knowledge, he does not come to think 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'things will be,' 'things will not be,' 'things will be embodied,' 'things will be disembodied,' 'things will be conscious,' 'things will be unconscious,' 'things will be neither conscious-nor-unconscious.'"

Notes

1. The too famous "discovery" of Descartes, Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), comes precisely under this heading. Descartes identified himself with, in Buddhist terms, vicaara "discursive thought," which belongs to the "mental formations" group (sankhaarakkhandha). When Goethe (whom many would consider a greater thinker than Descartes) said "Gefühl ist alles" ("Feeling is everything"), it might be thought that (at that moment) he was identifying himself with the "feeling" group (vedanaakhandha). But these are sensations, physical and mental, and what Goethe meant corresponds more probably to piiti (SN 12.23, n. 4 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023x.wlsh.html#fn-4), which also belongs to the mental formations.

2. Indriya. The standard translation for this word is "faculty" which, though rather vague, is convenient. For the full list of the 22 Indriyas, see BD [Buddhist Dictionary (2nd ed.), by Ven. Nyaa.natiloka, Ven. Nyaa.naponika (ed.), Colombo 1972]. These first five are associated with the five (bodily) senses also recognized in the West, to which Buddhism adds mind as the sixth. See also n. 3.

3. Avakkanti hoti lit. "there is a descent" (into the womb): they are "born." The meaning is that they exert their influence. The word indriya comes from ind[r]a "lord" (cf. the god Indra) and implies "control": hence they are sometimes referred to as the "controlling faculties."

4. Atthi bhikkhave mano. Woodward badly mistranslates this as "Mind is the result," which would render hoti "comes to be," not atthi "is, exists." To say that mind is the "result" of bodily factors is certainly not the Buddhist view and smacks of modern materialistic theories. Mind, even ignorant mind, is not derived from matter. Cf. Dhp 1-2: Manopubbanagoma dhamma "Mind precedes all states." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#dhp-1

5. Dhammaa (plural). This is one of the regular meanings of this multivalent word.

6. Avijjadhaatu, an unusual combination. Probably in the sense of the (ignorant) manodhaatu "mind-element," which "performs the function of Advertence (aavajjana) towards the object of inception of a process of sensuous consciousness" (BD, s. v. dhaatu). The reading vijjadhaatu "element of knowledge" in Feer's text must, as Woodward recognizes, be wrong here.

7. Vedayitena "by what is felt." A variant reading is cetasikena "by the mental factor." In the Abhidhamma the cetasikas are the (conventionally 50) "mental formations" comprising the sankhaarakkhandha plus the khandhas of feeling (vedanaa) and perception (saññaa), thus making a total of 52. See BD.

9. Ruupii: lit. "having a body." This and the next term refer to the lower and higher jhaanas ("absorptions") associated respectively with the "world of form" (or "fine-material world": BD) (ruupaloka) and the "formless world" (or "immaterial world": BD) (aruupaloka), and to the types of rebirth dependent on the attainment of these. See SN 40.9, n. 1. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-1

10. Nevasaññiinaasaññii, associated with the state of "neither-perception-nor-non-perception," the very subtle state of the fourth "formless" (or "immaterial") jhaana. This can still be attained by a "worldling," as was done by Gotama's second teacher, Uddaka Ramaputta, before the Bodhisatta (SN 12.10, n. 3 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.010.wlsh.html#fn-3) decided to "go it alone." Uddaka had thus progressed as far as it is possible to go without "breaking through" to the path of enlightenment.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.

"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception.

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications.

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"Thus, both this assumption & the understanding, 'I am,' occur to him. And so it is with reference to the understanding 'I am' that there is the appearance of the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, & body (the senses of vision, hearing, smell, taste, & touch).

"Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

"The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."

On one occasion many elder monks were staying at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. And at that time Ven. Khemaka was staying at the Jujube Tree Park, diseased, in pain, severely ill. Then in the late afternoon the elder monks left their seclusion and addressed Ven. Dasaka, [saying,] "Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "We hope you are getting better, friend. We hope you are comfortable. We hope that your pains are lessening and not increasing. We hope that there are signs of their lessening, and not of their increasing."'"

Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him: "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'We hope you are getting better, friend. We hope you are comfortable. We hope that your pains are lessening and not increasing. We hope that there are signs of their lessening, and not of their increasing.'"

"I am not getting better, my friend. I am not comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening."

Then Ven. Dasaka went to the elder monks and, on arrival, said to them, "The monk Khemaka has said to me, 'I am not getting better, my friend. I am not comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening.'"

"Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: Do you assume anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self?"'"

Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him, "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: Do you assume anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self?'"

"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self."

Then Ven. Dasaka went to the elder monks and, on arrival, said to them, "The monk Khemaka has said to me, 'Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self.'"

"Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: If, with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, Ven. Khemaka assumes nothing to be self or belonging to self, then Ven. Khemaka is an arahant, devoid of fermentations."'"

Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him, "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: If, with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, Ven. Khemaka assumes nothing to be self or belonging to self, then Ven. Khemaka is an arahant, devoid of fermentations.'"

"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

Then Ven. Dasaka went to the elder monks and, on arrival, said to them, "The monk Khemaka has said to me, 'Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, "I am" has not been overcome, although I don't assume that "I am this."'"

"Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness'? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"'"

Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him, "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'Friend Khemaka, this "I am" of which you speak: what do you say "I am"? Do you say, "I am form," or do you say, "I am something other than form"? Do you say, "I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness," or do you say, "I am something other than consciousness"'? This "I am" of which you speak: what do you say "I am"?'"

"Enough, friend Dasaka. What is accomplished by this running back & forth? Fetch me my staff. I will go to the elder monks myself."

Then Ven. Khemaka, leaning on his staff, went to the elder monks and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with them. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the elder monks said to him, "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"

"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"

"No, friend."

"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly."

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.

"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

When this was said, the elder monks said to Ven. Khemaka, "We didn't cross-examine Ven. Khemaka with the purpose of troubling him, just that [we thought] Ven. Khemaka is capable of declaring the Blessed One's message, teaching it, describing it, setting it forth, revealing it, explaining it, making it plain — just as he has in fact declared it, taught it, described it, set it forth, revealed it, explained it, made it plain."

That is what Ven. Khemaka said. Gratified, the elder monks delighted in his words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of sixty-some monks, through no clinging, were fully released from fermentations — as was Ven. Khemaka's.

"Thus this way of regarding things and [the notion] 'I am' have not vanished in him."

Spk explains: " this way of regarding things" as regading with views (ditthisamanupassana) and "the notion 'I am'" as the "triple proliferation" (panpancapattaya) of craving, conceit, and views. The two differ in that "regarding" is a conceptually formulated view, the notion "I am" a subtler manifestation of ignorance expressive of desire and conceit; see the important discussion at SN22.89 [copied above]. The view of self is eliminated by the path of stream entry; the notion "I am" is fully eradicated only by the path of arahantship.

"As 'I am' has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties --- of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty."

I take this terse sentence to be describing the rebirth process contingent on the persistence of the delusion of personal selfhood. Elsewhere "descent" (avakkanti) --- of conciousness, or of name-and-form indicates the commencement of a new existence (as at SN12:39, SN12:58, SN12:59). Spk: When there is this group of defilements , there is the production of the five faculties conditioned by defilements and kamma.

"When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, 'I am' occurs to him; 'I am this' occurs to him; 'I will be' and 'I will not be', and 'I will consist of form' and 'I will be formless', and 'I will be percipient' and 'I will be nonpercipient' and 'I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient' --- these occur to him."

I interpret this whole passage as a demonstration of how the new kammically active phase of existence commences through the renewal of conceiving in terms of the notion "I am" and speculative views of selfhood. Spk identifies "mind" (mano) with the kamma-mind (kammamano) and "mental phenomena" (dhamma) with its objects, or the former as teh bhavanga and adverting conciousness. Ignorance-contact (avijjasamphassa) is the contact associated with ignorance (avijjasampayuttaphassa).

Ignorance is the most fundamental condition underlying this process, and when this is activated by feeling it gives rise to the notion "I am" (a manifestation of craving and conceit). The idea "I am this" arises subsequently, when the vacuous "I" is given content by being identified with one or other of the five aggregates. Finally, full eternalist and annihilationist views originate when the imagined self is held either to survive death, or to undergo destruction at death. This passage thus presents us with an alternative version of dependent origination, where the "way of regarding things" and the notion "I am" belong to the causally active side of the past existence; the five faculties to the resultant side of the present existence; and the recurrence of the notion "I am" to the causal side of the present existence. This will in turn generate renewed existence in the future.

I thought Bhikkhu Bodhi's observation that this Sutta gives a variation on the usual Dependent Origination sequence was interesting.

I know that some here favour a momentary version of DO over the Commentarial version, but I don't think this really affects the argument. Perhaps someone would like to comment.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:"As 'I am' has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties --- of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty."

I take this terse sentence to be describing the rebirth process contingent on the persistence of the delusion of personal selfhood. Elsewhere "descent" (avakkanti) --- of conciousness, or of name-and-form indicates the commencement of a new existence (as at SN12:39, SN12:58, SN12:59).Spk: When there is this group of defilements , there is the production of the five faculties conditioned by defilements and kamma.

The Sutta certainly seems to be saying that the conceptualising 'I am' is conditioning the arising of the faculties. A momentary model of DO would presumably interpret this as simply the arising of the faculties in the here and now, rather than a conditioning of rebirth. However, either way, I think it's useful to consider the idea that this is a variation on dependent origination. This is then expanded upon:

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:"When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, 'I am' occurs to him; 'I am this' occurs to him; 'I will be' and 'I will not be', and 'I will consist of form' and 'I will be formless', and 'I will be percipient' and 'I will be nonpercipient' and 'I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient' --- these occur to him."

I interpret this whole passage as a demonstration of ho the new kammically active phase of existence commences through the renewal of conceiving in terms of the notion "I am" and speculative views of selfhood. Spk idenfifies "mind" (mano) iwth the kamma-mind (kammamano) and "mental phenomena" (dhamma) with its objects, or the former as teh bhavanga and adverting conciousness. Ignorance-contact (avijjasamphassa) is the contact associated with ignorance (avijjasampayuttaphassa).

I think this part of BB's interpretation applies equally to a momentary model. As Bhikkhu Bodhi continues:

Ignorance is the most fundamental condition underlying this process, and when this is activated by feeling it gives rise to the notion "I am" (a manifestation of craving and conceit). The idea "I am this" arises subsequently, when the vacuous "I" is given content by being identified with one or other of the five aggregates. Finally, full eternalist and annihilationist views originate when the imagined self is held either to survive death, or to undergo destruction at death.

These are are all wrong views by any model.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:This passage thus presents us with an alternative version of dependent origination, where the "way of regarding things" and the notion "I am" belong to the causally active side of the past existence; the five faculties to the resultant side of the present existence; and the recurrence of the notion "I am" to the causal side of the present existence. This will in turn generate renewed existence in the future.

In a momentary model I imagine that we can replace "previous existence"/"future existence" as "cause"/"effect".

BB seems to be explaining that one can view this as DO in the following manner:

"way of regarding things" and the notion "I am" (Causes: first two links: ignorance, formations)

Having the Sutta describe a descent of the five sense faculties bothered me at first because the passage wasn't "six sense faculties", as elsewhere. In trying to tease out why the Buddha left the mind faculty aside until the next sentence, I found another passage in the Samyutta Nikaya that reflects this method of explanation:

SN 48.42 The Brahmin Unnabha:..."Brahmin, these five faculties have different domains, different resorts; they do not experience each others' resort and domain. What five? The eye... ear... nose... tongue... body faculty. Now, brahmin, these five faculties have different domains, different resorts, not experiencing each others' resort and domain - they take recourse in the mind, and the mind experiences their resort and domain."

So the conceit "I am" means taking (one of) the five aggregates as self, whereupon there is a descent of the five faculties. Because of ignorance in the beginning, the mind (taking part of the five resorts available plus its own) experiences ignorance-contact with those faculties' domains. Here is a preliminary correlation:

I think you are right in interpreting the passage as discussing papanca. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on the passage you quote:

"Brahmin, these five faculties have different domains, different resorts, not experiencing each other's resort and domain --- they take recourse in the mind and the mind experiences their resort and domain."

Manopatisaranam mano ca nesam gocaravisayam paccanubhoti. Spk explains mano here as the mind-door javana, which experiences the object by way of lust, hatred, or delusion. In my view, this introduces and unnecessary ethical slant on the passage, which I take to be primarily epistemic in import. I interpret the sentence simply to mean that mind-conciousness has access to the data provided by the five types of sense conciousness, which it collates, categorizes, and interprets with its own stock-in-trade, namely concepts.

mikenz66 wrote:In a momentary model I imagine that we can replace "previous existence"/"future existence" as "cause"/"effect".

In a momentary model, the words of Bhikkhu Bodhi are already off-base because they refer to past and future; changing such words ignores the important fact that Bhikkhu Bodhi renders "akalika" differently than, say, Bhikkhu Nanananda. It is here that the momentary and three-lives pedagogies diverge.

mikenz66 wrote:1. The too famous "discovery" of Descartes, Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), comes precisely under this heading. Descartes identified himself with, in Buddhist terms, vicaara "discursive thought," which belongs to the "mental formations" group (sankhaarakkhandha). When Goethe (whom many would consider a greater thinker than Descartes) said "Gefühl ist alles" ("Feeling is everything"), it might be thought that (at that moment) he was identifying himself with the "feeling" group (vedanaakhandha). But these are sensations, physical and mental, and what Goethe meant corresponds more probably to piiti (SN 12.23, n. 4 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023x.wlsh.html#fn-4), which also belongs to the mental formations.

The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone wonders whether or not they exist, that is, in and of itself, proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who does the thinking).[2] It forms the bedrock for all knowledge, because, while all things can be questioned as to whether they are from the realm of reality or from some figment of imagination (a dream, etc), the very act of doubting one's own existence serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence.

A common mistake is that people take the statement as proof that they, as a human person, exist. However, it is a severely limited conclusion that does nothing to prove that one's own body exists, let alone anything else that is perceived in the physical universe. It only proves that one's mind exists (that part of an individual that observes oneself doing the doubting). It does not rule out other possibilities, such as waking up to find oneself to be a butterfly who had dreamed of having lived a human life.

rowyourboat wrote:I think it is well worthwhile penetrating this thing called 'I' in terms of views.

Understanding through views isn't penetrating; it adds another layer of thought.

And thus, Theravadins have commentaries, commentaries on commentaries, commentaries on commentaries on commentaries, and Buddhist forums.

Understanding through views isn't penetrating; it adds another layer of thought.

And thus, Theravadins have commentaries, commentaries on commentaries, commentaries on commentaries on commentaries, and Buddhist forums.

It's not thought that is to be shunned...

... it is unwholesome or unskilful mindstates that ought to be shunned.

Suttas such as this one show the underlying causality that results in ignorant/deluded mindstates, and if one understands the causality behind these things, we can take pro-active measures to ensure the causes we create are aligned to the effects we want to achieve.

If it's treated solely as a thought exercise, then it will look as frustrating and futile as the picture you depict.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Individual wrote:You're wrong, but you're not going to waste my time or ruin my good mood. Don't use the Buddha's point-of-view as a shield to defend your own interpretations.

Could you explain what exactly you disagree with? My interpretation of Walshe's point, the Buddha's message, or the contention that Descartes is a prime example of identifying the mental formations as self, which seems to me to make Descarte an "uninstructed worldling" (like the rest of us...).

Here's the sentence that Walshe was commenting on:

The Buddha wrote:"Here, monks, the uninstructed worldling... regards body as the self, the self as having body, body as being in the self, or the self as being in the body. [Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.'] So this way of regarding arises: it occurs to him to think 'I am.'

One could, of course, argue that this "self" does have a temporary existence, and it is therefore what we have to work with. But it seems clear that the Buddha's message is that it is something that will have to be abandoned in order to end dukkha.